Maybe my specific way of experiencing furry identity (i.e. zoomorphic) is not common, but it is part of a general commonality. Namely that I am part of a large group of furries that express a core furry identity.
My complaint is not with people telling me that zoomorphic furries are not common or that furry fandom should revolve around me. My complaint is that hobbyist furries IN GENERAL seem to be trying to minimise the experiences of core-identity furries IN GENERAL through language, and when that divide is closer to 60%/40% of the furry population, that is both significant and grossly unfair.
Hobbyist furries like to express their identities through their interactions in art and media, so naturally when they are asked to define furry, their answer is something like, "People with an interest in anthropomorphic animals expressed through art and media". They include themselves to the exclusion of others. But when a core-identity furry does the exact same thing, hobbyists have an immediate inclination to minimise or exclude those opinions either by declaring them "not furry" or making an excuse like the majority is more important or it confuses non-furries. I know you hate to hear this but this is a text-book example of systemic prejudice. This is what Zootopia was all about.
My first example of a furry definition may not have been good as an actual definition, but I think my acknowledgement of both hobbyist furries and core-identity furries was important. I may not engage with furry as a hobbyist, but I didn't exclude hobbyists from recognition as furries. So I don't understand why you feel the need to exclude core-identity furries from the same recognition, except that you think being part of a small majority gives you the right to make that decision.
Maybe my specific way of experiencing furry identity (i.e. zoomorphic) is not common, but it is part of a general commonality. Namely that I am part of a large group of furries that express a core furry identity.
My complaint is not with people telling me that zoomorphic furries are not common or that furry fandom should revolve around me. My complaint is that hobbyist furries IN GENERAL seem to be trying to minimise the experiences of core-identity furries IN GENERAL through language, and when that divide is closer to 60%/40% of the furry population, that is both significant and grossly unfair.
Hobbyist furries like to express their identities through their interactions in art and media, so naturally when they are asked to define furry, their answer is something like, "People with an interest in anthropomorphic animals expressed through art and media". They include themselves to the exclusion of others. But when a core-identity furry does the exact same thing, hobbyists have an immediate inclination to minimise or exclude those opinions either by declaring them "not furry" or making an excuse like the majority is more important or it confuses non-furries. I know you hate to hear this but this is a text-book example of systemic prejudice. This is what Zootopia was all about.
My first example of a furry definition may not have been good as an actual definition, but I think my acknowledgement of both hobbyist furries and core-identity furries was important. I may not engage with furry as a hobbyist, but I didn't exclude hobbyists from recognition as furries. So I don't understand why you feel the need to exclude core-identity furries from the same recognition, except that you think being part of a small majority gives you the right to make that decision.